We have discussed five issues that could affect the results of the LAEDC and/or UCLA-IRLE studies:

 Unknown assumptions embedded in the LAEDC economic models and their failure to consider the benefits of alternative public or private uses of tax credit funds (which could result in the credit program having significantly less net benefit than shown in the studies).

 In-state film activity that would occur in California without any tax credit (which results in the credit program having less economic and tax net benefits than shown in the LAEDC study).

 In-state economic and employment activity resulting from out-of-state productions (which results in the credit program having less net benefit than shown in the studies).

 Crowding out effects (which result in the credit program having less net benefit than shown in the studies in at least some years).

 Effects of film-related tourism (which would likely not result in significant changes in net benefits in most years).

While the total effects of these issues are impossible to quantify, their combined effects are likely to be negative in any given fiscal year—that is, resulting in the net benefit of the credit program being less than shown in both the LAEDC and UCLA-IRLE studies.

Given the conclusion that the net benefit of the credit program is likely less than shown in the LAEDC study, the LAEDC’s finding that the output-to-credit ratio was about 20-to-1 is likely overstated, as is its estimate of job gains resulting from the credit program. Moreover, given that UCLA-IRLE adjusted downward to $1.04 the projected state and local tax revenue return from every credit dollar and given that we find that this also was overstated, we believe it is likely that the state and local tax revenue return would be under $1.00 for every tax credit dollar—perhaps well under $1.00 for every tax credit dollar in many years.

In any event, even if the combined state and local tax revenue return is right around $1.00 for every tax credit dollar, the state government’s tax revenue return would by definition be less than $1.00 for every tax credit dollar. The credit program, therefore, appears to result in a net decline in state revenues.”

“I was doing a scene where my ex-military boyfriend gets in a fight, and it was scripted that I just stand there … I just got involved. I pulled one actor off of another and they loved it. They said, ‘Keep doing it.’ We did it 12 times and I didn’t realize on the first take I broke my finger.”

Take a look for yourself to see dude just drive off the Bay Bridge due to a moment’s inattention in last night’s episode of NBC’s Trauma serial. (Do you think you’d survive after falling so far inside a Jeep Cherokee Classic? I don’t think it’d be possible, but maybe the breast implants inside the car softened the jolt or something.)

“The problem started at 9 p.m., with the previously sorta-canceled “Trauma” (1.4/3) returning from the grave as a Nielsen zombie. It hit its lowest rating yet, falling 22 percent from its fall average and 13 percent from its last original. It wouldn’t be shocking if NBC decided to quickly replace “Trauma” in the timeslot. That’s because “Trauma” tainted “L&O,” which managed a third-place 1.5/4 at 10 p.m. — down 25 percent from last week, when NBC aired a double dose of the drama from 9-11 p.m. Worse, “L&O” was actually off 6 percent from what “The Jay Leno Show” had been averaging at 10 p.m. Mondays.

“NBC — which actually did quite well last week, given the fact that it had to fill 5 hours of primetime post-Jay– does not want to see any negative Leno-to-scripted comparisons at 10 p.m. Period.”

Not saying I would or could do a better job, but maybe the whole concept of shooting this kind of old-school TV show on location on the Streets of San Francisco was a bad idea? Is that possible?

On It Goes. How much longer will this Great San Francisco Nielsen Zombie last?

We listened to the audience and to critics, and were able to satisfy a lot of complaints about the characters.

We improved the humor and the action on the front line.”

It’s almost like they’re shooting a whole new show! Good on you, Rabbit. Remember how excited people were when gorgeous Jennifer Siebel Newsom was in the pilot episode? Maybe we can get some of that back.

NBC/Universal

Now, while we’re remembering last autumn, wasn’t that the time when co-star Aimee Garcia was spinning this tale?

Shooting for, what shall we call it, Trauma II: This Time We Mean Itmoves to the East Bay tomorrow. Actually, they were looking for extras with Pakistani heritage just the other day. But keep in mind that when you’re an extra working on Treasure Island you get paid $1.79 more per hour than when you’re an extra working in Oakland. Why? It all has to do with the minimum wage. Anyway, you might be too late for this, but there could be other gigs coming up:

Certainly, Trauma has been traumatic for NBC, but what about San Francisco? Would we have been better off without subsidizing this inchoate production? Did we really pay SFPD officers to just hang out around the set for the filming of twelve episodes instead of having the cops do their regular jobs?

How does the Scene in San Francisco scheme work? The TV people pay for the cops but then we turn around and give the TV people all the money back?

“What costs are eligible for refund?

Fees paid to City Departments for the use or rental of City property, equipment or employees including: Port, MUNI, SPFD [SFPD?], SFFD, DPT, DPW, Treasure Island, Recreation and Parks, and all City buildings

Certainly, Trauma was good for certain people in San Francisco, but was it good for San Francisco and San Franciscans overall? Is this the kind of thing we want to do again? Are there any Lessons to be Learned here?